Onibubba wrote:Out of curiosity, have any of you seen Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ or read the book? I thought that was a very interesting look at Jesus' last moments on the cross and what led up to it. Dramatic license to be sure, but it was a film that made you think and talk about religion.
I never understood all the controversy over Last Temptation; some of the most vocal protestors admitted that they'd never even seen it! After seeing it, and seeing it from a non-Christian perspective, I was amazed that anyone had any problems with it. All the 'controversial" scenes were when Satan was tempting Christ to give up - as written in the bible. Satan offered everything - money, power, women, fame - and that Christ refused it all, even while he was in great agony, was made so clear in the film that even I felt awed.
Oh, re: crucifiction - wrists, never hands. The weight of the body would tear nails right through the muscle and flesh on the hands.
Ogre - Yes, I've always been amazed that a nice burly Middle Eastern carpenter somehow keeps getting depicted as a delicate Northern European...
So, the movie might blame Jews - or Romans. Who else was there to blame? In any case, if it was God's will, then no one involved had any choice at all, and how can you reasonable espouse it being God's Plan and then blame anyone? The last time I checked, it went the way it was supposed to have gone!
Last edited by JaNell on Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
I can't remember if it was my history professor or Dr. Craig who told us the story about the hands v. wrists thing. Either way, the information I got was that it was the usual custom to drive the nail through the hands so that the body's weight did indeed rip the person down within a certain period of time. The lecture explained that crucifiction wasn't always used as an executionary technique, but as simple torture.
The apparent reason Jesus was nailed throught the wrists was because he was in fact being executed. The Romans didn't want him slipping away so easily. (Sorry, pun intended.) Then the stigmata always showing pierced hands, would have been inaccurate & due to the common knowledge of most people at the time who knew the style of crucifiction used for torture, not execution.
Or one could argue that Christ was indeed crucified through the hands, passed out, fell off the cross, & regained consciousness after being entombed. One could, if one wanted to piss lots of people off, but since that one isn't me, I'll just shut the hell up.
Oh, as for Last Temptation, definitely worth watching! I'd like to see the Gibson flick too, but I'll probably wait for it on dvd.
Coor wrote:Third...Directors DON'T DO CASTING! Yes, they have some power but you can't sacrifice tallent, for authenticy(sp).
he's the money...one of the main producers. that's the top of the decision making chain, and i'm sure the subject came up. also, why do you think that would sacrifice talent. do you think that there are absolutely no good middle-eastern actors? really, there are tons of people who are more than sufficient. there are just very few studios that will endorse/back those types of projects....unless you count nameless extras.
Last edited by monstergirlie on Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
First off the movie is 85% based of the writing of Two Nunes one from the 13th and one from the 16th century, and people saying it takes from several referances.....well any time you tell a bible story it automaticly cross ref several sources.
Second He IS trying to force his religion on others, MANY churches recieved special previews that also included instructions on how to get, make, insnare converts during, after and outside this movie (when I went to see LOTR i recived no special instruction on how to get people to join Salrons army)
For all the trouble he went through with the language, he got it wrong (Greek was the base language of the time, used by the romans and others when in different lands (like a common tounge you might say)
Is this the biggest movie of our time, well thats up to the people...Is it the best movie of our time...no.. Its not even a good version of this story.
Fashion is FOR Victims...-LT.
..The men in black, thier lips are sealed...-BOC
- Even your sins are retail- John Stewart
Sorry I Know we just HATE movie critics but here's a good one from Slate that covers the movie on the merits of it being a movie and as a story (and a few swipes and Mel for him thinking he could pull this off)
Did anyone see the special on NBC Dateline about the death of Christ? They had historians and what have you detailing what probably happened on Jesus' last day ...
First point: He probably carried only the crossbar, not the entire cross. A cross would have been too heavy for the average person to support (of course believers will argue that Jesus is not just the average person) ...
Second point: Nailed to the cross by wrists, not hands ... hands wouldn't support the nails (but again, Jesus is beyond human, right?)
Third: Jesus had a premonition of his own death. Wouldn't be hard to figure out though ... his friend John the Baptist brought forth some radical teachings which the Roman Empire found offensive, and as a result he had his head served up on a silver platter. Jesus surely had to think about the possibility of a similar fate for himself.
Another interesting point: According to those historians, the person/people to blame for the death of Jesus was Pontius Pilate and the Roman Empire. While it's true that the head of that Jewish village had a role, he mainly did it to ensure he kept his job.
And from Pilate's point of view, he felt justified in doing anything to keep the holy Jewish festival of Passover from being disrupted into violence. From his point of view, someone going around claiming to be the son of God would represent a direct threat to the authority of the Roman Empire.
There is a section in one of the Gospels which states that Pilate asked for the verdict of the Jewish people as to Jesus' fate ... again unlikely, Pilate probably didn't give two hoots what those people thought. Another opinion is that this account (and others in the New testament) were written with a slight slant against the Jews because the people who wrote it didn't want to be seen as being biased against the Roman Empire. After all, look where it landed Jesus and John the Baptist.
Again, some interesting points ... how accurate one believes they are, rather relies on one's point of view.
Ogre wrote:Until I see jesus depicted as a black man, I will never be happy with christianity.......
Hell it even says so in the bible! 'Skin of bronze and hair like black sheep's wool'
That is because he isnt black or white....he is jewish.
“That proves you are unusual, returned the Scarecrow; and I am convinced the only people worthy of consideration in this world are the unusual ones. For the common folks are like the leaves of a tree, and live and die unnoticed.â€
Ogre wrote:Until I see jesus depicted as a black man, I will never be happy with christianity.......
Hell it even says so in the bible! 'Skin of bronze and hair like black sheep's wool'
That is because he isnt black or white....he is jewish.
Funny isn't it tho ... the Bible says God created man in His own image ... yet how often we as humans tend to reinvent God/Jesus in our own image.
Jesus probably looked like your average semite/hebrew/arab ... brownish skin, dark hair and eyes ... yet when Christianity spread to europe he all of a sudden became caucasian, brown haired and blue eyed (of course, so that this religion from a foreign land would be more readily accepted by Europeans) ... the Africans thought he was a black man ... and for all I know, Kermit the Frog thinks he's green.
Historically, this movie seems to be fairly accurate.
Crucifixition was very common and in fact there were two others crucified along with Christ. It was also common that people were crucified upside down. If I am not mistaken, crucifixtion was a commo punishment for many , many years. I beleive it had ended when Constantine converted to Christianity, along with the Roman Empire, is when it had become illegal. The portrayal of Christ being caucasian emerged approx. 1500 years ago because of the european influeance over the Papacy. In fact, one was considered a heretic if they said anything contradicting the Church. Heresy was a very serious crime., at times punishable by death.
As far as the film being Anti-Semetic, I don't think that is the case. Parts of the film is in Aramatic, which was the language that the Hebrew spoke at that time. In order for the language and pronunciations to be accurate, ancient documents and accounts would have to be studied. Also, linguists would be on staff for the film.
I have not seen the film as of yet, but I do plan on viewing it. I don't honestly see why people are in an uproar about this film. Jesus Christ was Jewish. His mother, Mary, was Jewish. But, as far I can tell, it is based on the Gospels according to the Saints John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. But, people are not picketing the sale of Bibles, are they? No. Does the Church make a big stink and hold press conferences about movies and television about molestation and involiving the priesthood urging moviegoers to boycott such a production? No.
With any film, TV show, song or other things of this nature, if someone looks hard enough they will find something wrong or to complain about it. Bottom line, don't want to see it? don't. think it is too violent for children? don't allow your kids to see it. Dont' let the media make your decisions for you, people. think for yourself. God gave you a brain use it. (I am not speaking of anyone in particular, iI'm speaking very generally.)
Synthpopalooza wrote:Jesus probably looked like your average semite/hebrew/arab ...
Thank you; "Jewish" is a word that define's one's religous beliefs, not one's race.
Lost Traveler wrote:For all the trouble he went through with the language, he got it wrong (Greek was the base language of the time, used by the romans and others when in different lands (like a common tounge you might say)
I think that Aramaic was the common spoken language of that time & area.
Last edited by JaNell on Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ANd I think CDs post has some great info that Torch 32 was asking about, and Gives the victory to Greek as the common language (also hebrew in a hebrew land).
Fashion is FOR Victims...-LT.
..The men in black, thier lips are sealed...-BOC
- Even your sins are retail- John Stewart
Synthpopalooza wrote: ... and for all I know, Kermit the Frog thinks he's green.
that's the funniest thing I've read so far in this thread...
I may be mistaken, but from what I remember of the history class I took in college (I apparently took the "weird" class) We used books of translated documents rather than a textbook because my professor disliked the rich white male slant that texts are written with. and from what I remember of those documents, Back in the day when Christianity was a fledgling religion the prerequisite to becoming a xian was that your were in fact Jewish. And also that you weren't calles a Christian at that time you were called a Catholic. Thus the start of the Roman Catholic Church..
"I think the American people?I hope the American?I don't think, let me?I hope the American people trust me." GWB
JaNell wrote:I think that Aramaic was the common spoken language of that time & area.
I was reading a bit of this and it strikes me as funny about how arrogant whites are...it's stating that it's in the group of languages "almost from the beginning of human history" yet we overlook the Chinese history who have writings dating back over 5000 years. Jsut wanted to point that out.
"I think the American people?I hope the American?I don't think, let me?I hope the American people trust me." GWB
Interesting that folks keep talking about the historicity of the film, about what is accurate and what is not, and in the process they forget that there is absolutely no historical evidence for Jesus whatsoever. The so-called contemporary gospels can be placed no earlier than the second century, long after Jesus was supposed to have lived and after anyone who had known him would be long dead. The most populary cited source for the actual existance of Jesus was Josephus the Jew, author of the historically important 'The Jewish Wars' and 'The Antiquities of the Jews'. And here is the passage that has been cited ad infinitum:
"At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one might call him a man. For he was one who accomplished surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon an indictment brought by the principal men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the holy prophets had foretold this and myriads of other marvels concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has to this day still not disappeared."
And that's it; that's all Josephus says in regard to Jesus. And it should be enough, shouldn't it? - and if it was authentic, I suppose it would be. However, no mention is made of Josphus in any of the first two-hundred years of Christian literature. No less a respected figure than Origen even says that Josephus never mentions Jesus. That small paragraph mysteriously appeared at a time when the literalist church was struggling against the first Christians, the Gnostics (yep, their literature predates literalist Christian literature by almost two centuries - and they never once claimed that Jesus was an actual historical personage, but rather a Judaic version of other religious mysteries, such as those of Adonis, Attis, and Mithras, from which the majority of the Jesus myth is liberally lifted, sometimes simply by replacing other mythical figures' names with that of Jesus), and were trying very hard to provide a historical framework for their deity in order to concretize their power. If Jesus was real, unlike the other figures, who were perceived by their follwers as religious allegory and metaphor, then they could claim that their religion was the only legitimate religion - an attempt that met with lots of contemporary ridicule. When they couldn't produce this nonexistant evidence they simply forged it - and clumsily at that. You see, Josephus was a pro-Roman Jew and so hated by his people that he was driven into exile. He lived in Rome until his death and he didn't believe in a Jewish Messiah, which is quite plain in other portions of his writing. Also, that fragment about Jesus is not written in the style of Josephus, does not at all fit with any of his other work. In fact, when it is removed from the book in question the continuity of the preceding paragraph is restored. It is a laughable forgery, not very well thought out at all, and seemingly dropped at random into the book. And that is the best the Christians can produce. It doesn't wash.
But I didn't look into these things trying to find evidence that Jesus didn't exist - quite the opposite, in fact. I was looking for references to a historical figure and was rather shocked to discover that there simply aren't any - none at all. Everything that is quoted as contemporary was written often hundreds, sometimes over a thousand, years later. I am amazed that I have never once heard this mentioned in any discussion of the film. It puzzles me that even people who are opposed to Christianity still seem to accept the existance of Jesus as a historical person - and not that he was simply a Judaic interpretation of the Mystery religions so popular during that period. The actual history of Christianity is far more amazing than the church party line. It really is one of the most amazing and significant stories of the past 2,000 years, although it actually has little to do with anyone named Jesus, but rather with power hungry little men who would - and did - do anything to secure their positions, not in Heaven, but on Earth.
But hey, enjoy the new Christ flick for what it is: a movie, and don't bother bickering about the historicity. There isn't any.
Wow, didn't your grandma teach you guys not to discuss religion or politics with friends?? lol
My opinion on the matter is:
It's a fucking MOVIE. And I don't think it's possible to get right every freakin' detail on something that happened so long ago and was so poorly documented.
I kinda view it as mythology based on a few facts here and there and will view the movie as such...
Movies are for entertainment, not arguments over organized religion which is probably the only true evil that exists...
Wow I am so glad everyone has gotten in on this discussion. I could tell you where everyone has a point or two where they are right or wrong....but buttercup nailed (no pun intended) it.........its a movie
But I am hardly a cryer. I really had to bite my lip.It didnt work. This is probably the best film I have ever seen. Not one race or religion was blamed. It was our sin that killed him ultimately. Everything was represented. And I dont know if they were speaking aramaic or latin. I caught a couple of Latin words. Satan was depicted so awesome . I cant explain it....very cool. and its the first movie I saw St. Veronica in (Look up St. Veronica's veil) This was the most human depiction of christ I have ever seen. It was beautiful, no one laid hands or tried to convert or couselk after it was over, but there was a standing ovation. It is very bloody and graphic........especially the torture scenes....some I had to look away from. But then again getting crucified isnt a girl scout jamboree either.............the cinematography is breathtaking. ANd on a personal note, this film really moved me. I dont know whatever it is that you beleive in, but I feel very unworthy that someone went through all that for me. I didnt deserve it.
*edited, in the original post I told everyone to look up the "icon made without hands". THis IS NOT the same as St' Veronica's veil. WHile St. Veronica's veil actually has no historical backing it is a story told and passed down till it has become legend, THe "Icon made without hands" does.....yet is a completely different story..I apologize....both were cloths wiped by Christ's face....easy mistake to make. If you are interested here are the links to clear that up.
http://www.stgeorge.ia.goarch.org/nohands.htm
I want to post a disclaimer before my post: I am not nor do I claim to be a Biblical scholar. I mean no offense toward anyone who subscribes tothe Christian faith. I have no place to decide what religion is right for anyone but me.
I would like to see the movie. I think it would be an interesting take on the event. My beef is with all the people who talk about how gory and painful it was to watch. If one subscribes to the Christian faith, then they believe Jesus was chosen, but also given a choice as well. The thousands of pagans slaughtered in the name of Christianity were given a choice as well: convert or die. When Hollywood makes a big budget movie that is an accurate depiction of the carnage of the crusades and the plight of pagans of all kind to keep their faith alive through the generations, I will be impressed.
"You're one of the it girls in Knoxville, you and JC..." Kyle from World Grotto
and besides the thing we were discussing the accuracy of was crucifixion in general not nessecarily of Jesus...and there's a whole thing about the actual existance of him here you may find it interesting.
"I think the American people?I hope the American?I don't think, let me?I hope the American people trust me." GWB
But hey, enjoy the new Christ flick for what it is: a movie, and don't bother bickering about the historicity. There isn't any.
um actually, you ARE wrong, there are many historical accuracies to Jesus........The Jewish DO recognize him but only as a pprophet. there are Roman and greek historical records of him. And the bible is a compilation of letters and recordings, not a fairytale as I suspect some people wish it to be. someone didnt slap it together monday after easter.........much of it was written after Christs death.....It was compiled....yes. But by the Fathers of the church who decided what was important and what wasn't. The bible is edited....in fact check out the Apocrapha (sp?) four books omitted from the bible due to not its unimportance, but the unsureness of its accuracy. The Fathers of the Church took great care in compiling a book so that no one would question its authenticity, but they knew people would. I apologize in my lack of citing anything to back my knowledge,,,,if you want I can find these things....but somehow I shrink from doing this as it mostly falls on arguement and deaf ears.
